Vandalism (crime against property)

Question 1

Black v Allan 1985

Answer 1

conviction quashed the Justice did not interpret ‘recklessness’ correctly accused stayed in a hotel for number of weeks and left without paying for window and did not tell about that; he was arrested and charged among other things with vandalism, convicted 1st instance, appeal - 1st inst. did not interpreted .. correctly. youths destroyed window
Held, (1) that the offence of vandalism was not merely an echo of the offence of malicious mischief, but stood on its own terms; and.

Question 2

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (S) Act 1995 s 52

Answer 2

‘wilfully or recklessly destroying or damaging any property belonging to another without reasonable excuse’

Question 3

Allan v Patterson 1980

Answer 3

Defined recklessness for purposes of the (now repealed and replaced) offence of reckless driving as conduct that falls ‘far below the standard of driving to be expected of a competent and careful driver’. This has been cited approvingly in relation to other statutory offences. ‘ conscious and deliberate causing of material risks or failure to notice obvious risks through gross inattention’

Question 4

MacDougal v Yuk-Sun Ho 1985

Answer 4

=> Damage to shop and shopkeeper saw two people trying to escape
=> Shopkeeper damaged car they were trying to escape in
=> Reasonable excuse was accepted

VANDALISM; reasonable excuse was accepted (unknown person smashed shop window the shopkeeper run outside to see who it was - person in a car - getting away - so they smashed window. Would Ho have been convicted of MM

Question 5

John v Donnelly 1999

Answer 5

reasonable excuse was not accepted per cutting a fence at a Royal Navy base to protest at alleged illegal weapons - distinguished from Ho, as no immediate crime was being committed/ nor culprits escaping

Question 6

Antisocial Behaviour etc (S) Act 2004 s 129

Answer 6

Distinguishing Vandalism from MM

Question 7

McGregor v Vannet 1999

Answer 7

taxi hand trapped in the door by taxi driver - taxi windscreen reasonable excuse, Held, on M’s appeal against conviction for vandalism when a taxi had arrived to pick up M’s girlfriend, the taxi driver’s ex-wife, and it was accepted that M had run towards the taxi and the windscreen had then been broken, but M claimed that the taxi had moved when M’s hand was trapped in the driver’s door and M had used his free hand to strike the windscreen, there being other evidence to support this version, that the appeal would be allowed since the justice had failed to address the vital issue, namely whether or not M had had his hand trapped and therefore a reasonable excuse for his actions